testingiauh912fandomcom-20200214-history
Dynamic assessment Sedighe Eyvazi
Dynamic Assessment ' ' ' '''Introduction ' ' ' Dynamic Assessment posits a qualitatively different way of thinking about assessment from how it is traditionally understood by classroom teachers and researchers. Dynamic Assessment proceeds from an ontological perspective on human abilities developed more than 80 years ago by the renowned Russian psychologist, L. S. Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s research into the development of cognitive functions revealed that this process is not a matter of innate abilities growing into a mature state but that it is the emergence of new ways of thinking, acting, and being that result from an individual’s engagement in activities where he or she is supported by cultural artifacts and by interactions with others. In this way, the social environment is not merely the stage on which development plays out, it is in fact the driving force of development. An important consequence of this view of mental abilities is that observing individuals’ independent performance reveals, at best, the results of past development. If one wishes to understand the processes of development, to intervene to help individuals overcome difficulties and to support their ongoing development, then mere observation of solo performance is insufficient. Instead, active collaboration with individuals simultaneously reveals the full range of their abilities and promotes their development. In educational contexts, this means that assessment – understanding learners’ abilities – and instruction – supporting learner development – are a dialectically integrated activity. This pedagogical approach has come to be known as Dynamic Assessment. ''Connecting Assessment and Instruction'' '' '' The first way of conceptualizing a relationship between assessment and instruction that Rea-Dickins discusses has to do with the impact of formal testing on teaching and learning. This phenomenon is generally referred to as the washback effect (Cheng, 2005; Cheng et al., 2004). Washback manifests itself predominantly in situations of high-stakes testing, where obtaining high test scores comes to be the goal of education, with the result that the scores themselves are not representative of knowledge or ability in a given domain but rather indicate how well students have been trained for the test (Alderson and Wall, 1993; Bailey, 1996). Some authors, such as Fredricksen and Collins (1989), have suggested that test impact could be good or bad. Describing what they term a test’s systemic validity, they argue that a test has high systemic validity if it promotes favorable instructional practices and low systemic validity to the extent that it inhibits learning (p. 28). While one can appreciate this perspective, it is nevertheless the case that the social value placed on attaining high tests scores is sometimes so great that tests themselves actually stand in the way of instructional practice. The relationship posited between assessment and instruction is essentially antagonistic; they are separate activities with distinct goals and methods . While washback studies investigate the impact of assessment on instruction, other researchers reverse this relationship and assign the leading role to instruction. In this approach to linking assessment and instruction, assessment procedures are not developed a priori and then imposed upon institutions and classroom teachers but instead emerge from a grounded analysis of instructional interactions and pedagogical practices as observed in the classroom. This approach, which for convenience will be referred to as curricular-driven assessment, enables classroom teachers to assume a more agentive role in determining assessment practices. Rea-Dickins (2004, p. 251) explains that an added advantage of curricular-driven assessment is that it lends itself well to evaluations of program effectiveness. In other words, because the assessments are derived from curricular objectives, students’ assessment performances can be taken as an indicator of how well those objectives are being met. Given the current interest in teacher and school accountability in many countries, this feature is sure to appeal to program administrators and policy makers. Nevertheless, while assessment and instruction may be linked at the level of program objectives, they are not integrated. A third approach to bringing assessment and instruction together involves establishing pedagogical goals and then devising parallel instruction and assessment activities. Rather than imposing an assessment on an extant educational context or using classroom practices to generate assessment procedures, instruction and assessment from this perspective should be developed in tandem. The task-based ''framework ''is an excellent example of such an approach. In task-based pedagogies, both instruction and assessment are modeled after the kinds of communicative activities that characterize everyday life (Chalhoub-Deville, 2001; Skehan, 2001; Wiggelsworth, 2001). Learning tasks are intended to simulate real-life communicative interactions that promote students’ “individual expression” (Chalhoub-Deville, 2001, p. 214). '''Assessment and Instruction from a Vygotskian Perspective Integrating Assessment and Instruction As stated earlier, the key to a monistic view of assessment and instruction is providing learners with mediation, or appropriate forms of support, in order to simultaneously understand and promote their abilities. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002, pp. viii–ix) observe that for some time what has passed for innovation in assessment practices really amounts to “cosmetic” changes to instruments and procedures, such as computerizing a traditional paper and pencil test or conducting oral interviews in an online format. DA, in their view, represents a paradigm shift toward a new philosophy of assessment that refocuses assessment on helping individuals develop through intervention. DA methods can also be placed on a continuum according to how they conceptualize mediation. Some types of DA standardize mediation while others take a more flexible approach to examiner–examinee interactions. Importantly, DA and NDA cannot be placed on a single continuum because they differ both ontologically and epistemologically. NDA conceives of assessment and instruction dualistically and is intended to profile, or even measure, abilities in their current state. DA offers a monistic view of assessment and instruction that focuses on developing abilities through intervention ''(Lidz, 1991, p. 6). These differing philosophies have profound implications for assessment practice (Lidz and Gindis, 2003). Three fundamental and interrelated differences between DA and NDA can be discerned: the view of abilities underlying the procedures, the purpose of conducting the assessments, and the role of the assessor. Each of these is discussed below. Of course, it should be clear at this point that DA and NDA, as the terms are used in this book, refer not to assessment ''instruments ''but to administration ''procedures; any assessment can be conducted in a dynamic or non-dynamic fashion. Models of Dynamic Assessment As mentioned earlier, there is currently a proliferation of approaches and methods that fall under the general term Dynamic Assessment. In part, this diversity can be attributed to researchers’ efforts to meet the demands of stakeholders in various assessment contexts. Another, more important factor in the development of DA models is the various ways in which Vygotsky’s work on the ZPD have been interpreted since the introduction of this concept to Western audiences by Vygotsky’s colleague, A.R. Luria (1961). In fact, as Chaiklin (2003), points out, the ZPD itself evolved over time in Vygotsky’s writings. While subsequent chapters will consider in some detail the interpretations of the ZPD that have led to specific DA methodologies, it is useful at this point to introduce some key terms that have been proposed to reflect various applications of DA procedures as well as differences regarding the nature and timing of interventions (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002; Lantolf and Poehner, 2004) Dynamic Assessment and Dynamic Testing Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) suggest a subtle yet important distinction between two broad applications of DA. According to these authors, DA procedures can be used to determine “whether and how the participant will change if an opportunity is provided” while others actually intervene in the development of the individual with the goal of producing changes (p. 30). They suggest the term dynamic testing ''to refer to the former and ''dynamic assessment ''for the latter. While the use of these terms introduces its own set of problems – not the least of which is the confusion it produces since both of these are generally referred to as DA – their point is worth considering. Sternberg and Grigorenko reserve the term ''dynamic assessment ''for procedures that attempt to undo predictions made by NDAs by intervening in learners’ development. These approaches to DA often use the initial assessment session as a springboard for subsequent intervention, which continues the ZPD work begun during the assessment. In some cases, such intervention programs extend over a period of years. Perhaps the most well known of these programs is Instrumental Enrichment, developed by Feuerstein and his colleagues in Israel as part of their approach to DA. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002, p. 30) contrast such applications of DA with those that are not part of an intervention program. They point out that some DA procedures can be thought of as diagnostic evaluations in which a mediator offers assistance to learners and analyzes their responsiveness in order to make predictions about their learning ability. The learners’ responsiveness to mediation is then reported to teachers, parents, administrators, and other decision-makers. One can imagine the value of such information for certain assessment decisions, including the acceptance of individuals into programs, the placement of learners at an appropriate level of study, the allocation of funds, etc. Here, the dynamic procedure is a one-time occurrence with a very particular purpose in mind. Of course, by suggesting that the examiner in this case does not attempt to change the learners, Sternberg and Grigorenko overlook the fact that mediated interaction can – and does – promote development. Nevertheless, if one follows Vygotsky’s argument that independent performance reveals only those abilities that have already developed, it is clear that DA enables a more fine-grained understanding of learners’ abilities than NDA. The work of Milton Budoff and his colleagues (also discussed in later chapters) applying DA principles to intelligence testing is an excellent example (Budoff, 1968, 1987). 'Interventionist and Interactionist DA' Lantolf and Poehner (2004) propose the terms ''interventionist ''and ''interactionist ''to describe the two general kinds of mediation that DA researchers can make available. Although some DA proponents refer to any kind of support offered to learners as “intervention” (e.g., Lidz, 1991; Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002), the term mediation will be used here, given its central role in SCT. However, mediation can entail a wide array of support, ranging from standardized hints to dialogic interaction. As Lidz and Gindis observe, Vygotsky was well aware of the different approaches educators might use to mediate learners’ development, suggesting that “it would be important to discriminate between those interactions that promote such development and those that do not, assuming that all interactions are not equal” (Lidz and Gindis, 2003, p. 104). In his own writings, Vygotsky preferred the term “cooperation” to describe the mediator–learner relationship, clearly implying a dialogic interaction in which both participants share in the responsibility for development (Vygotsky, 1998, p. 201). ''Interactionist ''DA follows Vygotsky’s preference for cooperative dialoging. In this approach, assistance emerges from the interaction between the mediator and the learner, and is therefore highly sensitive to the learner’s ZPD. ''Interventionist ''DA, on the other hand, remains closer to certain forms of static assessment and their concerns over the psychometric properties of their procedures. ''Interventionist ''DA uses standardized administration procedures and forms of assistance in order to produce easily quantifiable results that can be used to make comparisons between and within groups, and can be contrasted with other measures and used to make predictions about performance on future tests. ''Interventionist ''DA is concerned with quantifying, as an “index of speed of learning” (Brown and Ferrara, 1985, p. 300), the amount of help required for a learner to quickly and efficiently reach a prespecified endpoint. In contrast, ''interactionist ''DA focuses on the development of an individual learner or even a group of learners, regardless of the effort and without concern for predetermined endpoints. Lantolf and Poehner (2004, p. 54) have noted that the distinction between these two approaches to DA is reminiscent of Elkonin’s (1998) train metaphor for describing different orientations to instruction and learning. According to Elkonin, those interested in learning speed and efficiency are said to focus on how quickly a train moves toward the final station along a set of tracks, while others are less interested in the train’s speed than they are in helping to lay down new tracks leading toward a station that is potentially always relocating (Elkonin, 1998, p. 300). 'Dynamic Assessment and Resistance to Change' Finally, DA procedures can be structured according to what Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002, p. 27) have described as ''sandwich ''and ''cake ''formats. The sandwich format is much more in line with traditional experimental research designs in which treatment is administered following a pretest (used to establish a baseline measure) and a posttest (used to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment). In this approach to DA, a mediation phase is similarly “sandwiched” between pretest and posttest that are administered in a non-dynamic manner. The performance on the posttest can then be compared to the pretest in order to determine how much improvement an individual made as a result of mediation. Sternberg and Grigorenko also point out that these procedures can be administered in either an individual or group setting, and that in individualized procedures the mediation may also be individualized, while in group procedures the mediation tends to be the same for everyone. The ''cake ''format refers to procedures in which mediation is offered during the administration of the assessment, usually whenever problems arise. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002, p. 27) note that the ''cake ''format is especially effective in individual administrations where mediators can focus their support on helping learners identify and overcome errors following each assessment task or item. In ''interventionist ''approaches to DA, the mediation offered might be in the form of a graded set of standardized hints ranging from implicit to explicit. The mediator then calculates the number and type of hints required by the learner in order to respond appropriately to the particular item. In such a model, variation across learners would necessarily be a function of the number rather than the content of the hints, since these are standardized. In an ''interactionist approaches to DA, any analysis of variation across learners or for the same learner over time would have to include both the quality and amount of assistance. ' '